It is a truism that we are living in a much more complex and changing world, with the greatest challenge being our undying avidity to live in a violence free world. Can this become a reality? A theoretical way of answering such a question will parade us to the conflict theory, which seeks to emphasize the inherent nature of conflicts, attributes violence to extreme oppressive social systems of power struggle and dominance within and between regions or groups. On the other hand, we can make reference to the power transition theory, which tries to justify war and the stability of alliances. Thus alliances are more stable when the parties to the alliance are satisfied with the system structure.
The International order accommodates relationships among multiple actors and total interaction among sovereign states. It has always been seen as an effective mechanism for global peace and security. The idea of contemporary international order continues to change, as challenges faced by global peace continue to harbor new forms and variations. From nuclear weapons, violent extremism and conflicts, to extreme poverty and environmental degradation. Systematically, changes in American foreign policy from Bush’s unilateralism to Obama’s stronger alliance and also China’s rise to the world stage can obscure power distribution and norms underlying the international order.
On January 16th 1991, the American then President, George Bush in an address to a joint US House of representatives and the Senate, announces a new form of world order with emphasis on America’s leadership or Pax Americana. This was followed by the Gulf war in which America was ready to lead the world to global peace. However, the September 11, 2001 attack on the US, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated the complex nature of task the US was getting into. It reveals that America was moving beyond global institutions to lead and with stand challenges to global peace. In this hegemony –alliance, we were faced with an international order which was not only dominated by the US, but even though with about 70 alliances determines the nature of world order and showcases her desire of not attributing undue faith to global institutions.
On the other hand, US President Barrack Obama, on May 24, 2010, shocked the world while addressing graduates of the US military academy in West Point, New York City. President Obama introduces a new form of international order, with the capacity to establish and maintain stronger international standards and institutions with alliances capable of resolving the multiple challenges to global peace and security. Here we see some useful rhetoric. Is Obama taking the US away from Bush’s unilateralism? Is he putting undue faith to global institutions and alliances? Looking beyond the obvious, president Obama was just admitting that global push through a single and dominant hegemony has not been enough to withstand challenges to global peace. But is this actually the case or is the US ready to lead from behind and ensure a stronger alliance with the capacity of resolving today’s challenges ranging from terrorism, civil war to nuclear proliferation down to economic decline? Recent events especially in the Middle East clearly justify the fact that our international order alliances tank still posses’ undue leakages. Libya’s case for instance clearly articulates America’s unwillingness to lead from behind and her lack of faith to global institutions. It reveals that even as the dominant state, other great powers and middle powers are manifesting growing tendencies to challenge her openly. With China’s continue rise relatively uncompromised, are we therefore moving towards a new form of international order that can accommodate the idea of a bipolar world order?
Edwin Ngome (LLB) MA NGO STUDIES
